Twenty Ways to Answer A Fool [12]

bigbroDoes Christianity model authoritarian organizations?

I continue once again considering the list of 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity compiled by blues guitar playing, Christ-hating anarchist, Chaz Bufe.

Thankfully, he provides us another short point that will require a short response:

14. Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization. Christianity is perhaps the ultimate top-down enterprise. In its simplest form, it consists of God on top, its “servants,” the clergy, next down, and the great unwashed masses at the bottom, with those above issuing, in turn, thou-shalts and thou-shalt-nots backed by the threat of eternal damnation. But a great many Christian sects go far beyond this, having several layers of management and bureaucracy. Catholicism is perhaps the most extreme example of this with its laity, monks, nuns, priests, monsignors, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and popes, all giving and taking orders in an almost military manner. This type of organization cannot but accustom those in its sway—especially those who have been indoctrinated and attending its ceremonies since birth—into accepting hierarchical, authoritarian organization as the natural, if not the only, form of organization. Those who find such organization natural will see nothing wrong with hierarchical, authoritarian organization in other forms, be they corporations, with their multiple layers of brown-nosing management, or governments, with their judges, legislators, presidents, and politburos. The indoctrination by example that Christianity provides in the area of organization is almost surely a powerful influence against social change toward freer, more egalitarian forms of organization.

If ever there was a more amazing example of the kettle-painting-pot cliche’! Chaz is a self-professed anarchist, so I can understand why he would have problems with any authority, let alone Christianity. Yet once again Chaz’s main illustration of Christian authority gone wild is Roman Catholicism and Catholicism does not represent the whole of biblical Christianity by any stretch of the imagination.

To a degree, Chaz raises a reasonable complaint about organized religion, Christianity specifically. It certainly is true that various sects of Christianity have had their problems with authoritarian abuse. Many independent fundamental style churches whether Baptist or Pentecostal, can be governed like a local HOA board of directors who implement some of the most odious zero tolerance policies imaginable. Ridiculously strict pastors and deacons will wield an iron rod of preference issues in the guise of “godliness” over a congregation of cowering members. They unlawfully lord over the people they are meant to shepherd.

However, in spite of those problems, biblical Christianity affirms the importance of authority structures within a church and soundly condemns the abuse of authority by leaders over a congregation. Human error does not negate the truthfulness of Christianity.

When Scripture is followed as the Lord intends it to be followed, abusive authority figures will stay checked. Of course, that is not to say members may need to be firmly disciplined, but firm discipline submitted to biblically led leadership is ordained of the Lord (Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 5).

As an anarchist, Chaz doesn’t care a bit for any boss, or president, or leader telling him what to do with his life. But, what sort of society does Chaz the anarchist have to offer in the place of bosses and leaders? I suggest Chaz’s anarchism would be just as authoritarian and abusive as the Christianity he decries.

True anarchy desires a world where everyone is living in tribal style communities with no centralized government, working and sharing together in free thinking cooperation, friendship, and absolutely no religion. Perhaps that is the kind of anarchist utopia Chaz has in mind. People gardening, weaving baskets, gathering fruit, sewing clothes, treating each other with self-respect, living eco-friendly lives, no one being made to attend church, and of course, engaging in all the free sex a person can humanly imagine with reckless abandon and impunity. You know, the type of society that in a Star Trek universe is effortlessly assimilated by the Borg without a fight.

If only historical anarchist movements could be that benign.

The historic reality, contrary to Chaz’s visions of what anarchy should be, has been horrific and blood filled. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, so does human government. For when one government is overthrown, another one most certainly will fill its place. In many cases, much worse than the first, and even if the rebel rousers express good intentions to refrain from being cruel authoritarians to each other. Orwell’s Animal Farm comes to mind, here.

A present day example of real anarchy is the country of Somalia where it was the only known world state without a centralized government between 1991 and 2006. The country was a disaster in which the poor and helpless were brutalized by those individuals who were able to gain power by means of force and violence.

Though Chaz has Pollyannish visions of living in a hobbiton style community where everyone shares equally in the collective good with no one bossing anyone else around, hierarchical authority structures have a necessary function in society. For one, authority structures make sure everything operates correctly. Such things as ease of commerce, basic emergency care, and defense. It also enforces the rules upon the members of society. Authority is designed to protect the citizenry. Does incompetence and abuse often arise within the authority structure? Certainly. But a society is much better off to find a corrective for the authority structure rather than live completely without it as Chaz envisions.

9 thoughts on “Twenty Ways to Answer A Fool [12]

  1. Pingback: Articles on Apologetics and Evangelism | hipandthigh

  2. Thanks for going through these, they are helpful for me.

    I do have one question that is only tangentially related to this post, but has been brewing in my mind for a while. Presuppositional apologetics (at least from what I have seen) seems to have been optimized for taking down modernist atheism (like the Bahnsen-Stein debate). Which is fine, because that was the predominate opposing worldview of the time.

    Now though, especially at a college such as where I am, post-modernism is supreme, which requires a slightly different approach (e.g. post-moderns will not readily admit the laws of logic to be universal as Stein did). I realize that presuppositionalism has responses to post-modernism (such as the absolute nature of saying that there are no absolutes) but I have not really seen a good example of presuppositionalism played out against post-modernism, as the Bahnsen debate was to modernism.

    Do you know of any such examples or of any other good resources applying presuppositionalism to post-modernism?

  3. Dan writes,
    Do you know of any such examples or of any other good resources applying presuppositionalism to post-modernism?

    No. I can’t think of any specific debate that focused upon postmodernism and presuppositionalism. However, I think you have a false perception of how influential postmodernism is.

    Granted, people are postmodern in our current day, postmodernism really being just another form of relativism and subjectivism. However, no one who claims to think in postmodern terms is truly postmodern. The simple reason being is that no one can possibly live out postmodernism in the real world. They will always lived inconsistently and hypocritically to their beliefs. When I have encountered a few postmodern thinking people over the years, it only takes a few moments of pressing them with questions to illustrate their inconsistency and thus the impracticality of their worldview. For example, a postmodern believer quickly abandons his postmodernism and thinks truth is extremely absolute when it comes to his paycheck.

  4. True, no non-biblical worldview can be consistently lived out, and postmodernism is an exceptionally blatant instance. I imagine I am simply frustrated with directing questions to show the inconsistency, only to be met with indifference. Since they are unregenerate this does not surprise me, but it can be disheartening after awhile.

  5. Honestly, when you’re dealing with somebody who ardently holds to postmodern philosophy (although not consistent in practice), at some point you have to realize you’re dealing with a fool (in Biblical terms). And that means you have to be willing to walk away at some point.

  6. Pingback: Mid-February 2015 Van Tillian Links | The Domain for Truth

  7. Pingback: Twenty Ways to Answer a Fool? | The Battle Cry

Leave me a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s